My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2C: IGR Committee Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 05/23/05 Mtg
>
Item 2C: IGR Committee Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:33:32 PM
Creation date
5/18/2005 4:15:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/23/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Taylor said the bill had sounded like a good thing. <br /> <br />Ms. Klemp noted the bill had yet to have a hearing. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br />HB 2882 <br /> <br />Mr. Jones said there was an engrossed version of the bill, which had been amended in the House Water <br />Committee. Those amendments did not change staff's comments. He said that HB 2882 was recommended <br />to pass out of the committee as amended. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she was inclined to support the bill. Mr. Jones said the source of the bill was the Oregon <br />Cattlemen's Association, which was not traditionally supportive of high water quality standards. The bill <br />would create many new unquantifiable requirements into water quality standards. He suggested the bill was <br />a ;;Trojan horse" intended to open up water quality standards to challenge. Mr. Jones noted that the <br />council's legislative policy was to oppose changes to State water quality standards though the legislative <br />process. <br /> <br />HB 3016 <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the bill, which was related to building code fees, Ms. <br />Osborn said currently there was no penalty for a local jurisdiction that does not provide notice to the director <br />of the Building Codes Division of changes in their fees. However, the State had the opportunity to extend an <br />appeal period. The bill cleaned up notification requirements so that notice went to the State. She clarified <br />that the bill did not affect the City as it already had a notification process in place. <br /> <br />HB 3017 <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked about the dueling staff recommendations to monitor and support the bill, which would <br />change the time the clock started for a six-month disqualification from bidding for a contractor who failed to <br />pay for materials and labor. Ms. Keppler indicated no objection to changing the status of the bill to <br />Support. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. <br /> The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />HB 3090 <br /> <br />The committee considered HB 3090, carried over from a previous meeting. Ms. Walston reported that she <br />consulted with County Clerk Annette Newingham about the bill, who had opposed the original version of the <br />bill. Ms. Newingham now supported the new engrossed version of the bill, as did the League of Women <br />Voters and Common Cause. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. <br /> The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations April 21, 2005 Page 12 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.